Michael Williams v. W. Lester, No. 14-6678 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6678 MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. E. LESTER, Correctional Officer; J. K. WILLIS, Correctional Officer; SHELTON, Sergeant; R. D. PERKINS, Lieutenant; T. LOWE, Inmate Hearing Officer (I.H.O.); J. D. SHREVE, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00097-JCT-RSB) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice. over final This court may exercise jurisdiction only orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). is neither a final order The order Williams seeks to appeal nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as Williams may be able to save the action by amending his complaint to cure identified by the district court. the pleading deficiencies Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Williams motions to appoint counsel and for leave to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED Any amended complaint must be filed in the district court rather than in this court. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.